Declaring the Rights of Players

One of those questions that given my position, I should not write about. No
matter what, any answer I give is bound to be wrong, either from the
perspective of my employers or my customers. Heck, even over on the
non-commercial side of the fence, it is likely to raise some hackles among
hardworking mud administrators.

Snake Oil for the masses.

The pesky thing about rights is that they keep coming up. Players keep
claiming that they have them. Administrators keep liberally applying the word like
some magic balm ("oh, you have every right to be upset"), in every
circumstance except the ones where the players want the notion of rights
taken seriously. Of course, administrators of any virtual space are loathe
to "grant players rights" because it curbs their ability to take action
against people, restricts their ability to walk away from it all, holds
them to standards they may not be able to live up to.

Here is a great example of a mud rights document from IgorMUD that I had to include, well,
because:

>HELP RIGHTS
========================================================
Igor has adopted this bill of unalienable player rights,
written by Jacob Hallen aka Tintin:
PARAGRAPH 1
Every player has the right to be a frog.
PARAGRAPH 2
Should the system the player is on fail to implement the
"being frog" functionality, the player has a right to
pretend he/she/it/Garlic is a frog.
PARAGRAPH 3
If a player does not exercise the right to be a frog,
or to pretend to be one, other players have a right to
pretend it/she/Garlic/he is a frog.
========================================================

There is at least one theory of rights which says that rights are not
"granted" by anyone. They arise because the populace decides to grant them
to themselves. Under this logic, the folks who rose up in France were not
looking for some king with a soon-to-be-foreshortened head to tell them,
"You have got the right to live your lives freely." They told themselves that
they had that right, and because they had said so, it was so. The flip side
of this is that unless you continually fight to make that claim true, then
it will not stick. The battleground is not a military one: it is a perception
one; as long as everyone is convinced that people have rights, they do.
They are inalienable only as long as only a minority does the, uh, aliening.
And, of course, especially as long as they are enshrined in some sort of
law. In other words, the guys in charge sign away a chunk of power, in
writing, that the populace expects them to sign away.

There is another theory of rights which holds them to be intrinsic to
people. Under this far more rigid standard, all those cultures which fail
to grant them are benighted bastions of savagery. The harder part here is
agreeing on what rights are intrinsic to all people everywhere-cultural
differences tend to make that hard.

Many mud administrators are of the belief that their muds are their private
playgrounds. That they have discretion on how enters and who gets to stay.
That they can choose to eject someone on any grounds whatsoever, can delete
a character at a whim, can play favorites and choose to grant
administrative favors to their friends. Even in pay-for-play circles, it is
always made very clear who owns the data, who has to sign Terms of Service,
etc. There is a bunch of this that is antithetical to the notion of rights.

Now, it is pretty clear that there are some rights which leak over from the
real world into the virtual. If your local pay-for-play mud operator is not
providing adequate service, you can report them to the Better Business
Bureau; there are probably sexual discrimination laws and harassment laws
and slander laws that apply equally well in both kinds of space. But rights
(and much less legislation) have not caught up to the notion of virtual
spaces very well. Which makes for an interesting thought experiment.

A Declaration of the Rights of Avatars

When a time comes that new modes and venues exist for communities, and said
modes are different enough from the existing ones that question arises as
to the applicability of past custom and law; and when said venues have
become a forum for interaction and society for the general public
regardless of the intent of the creators of said venue; and at a time when
said communities and spaces are rising in popularity and are now widely
exploited for commercial gain; it behooves those involved in said
communities and venues to affirm and declare the inalienable rights of the
members of said communities. Therefore herein have been set forth those
rights which are inalienable rights of the inhabitants of virtual spaces of
all sorts, in their form henceforth referred to as avatars, in order that
this declaration may continually remind those who hold power over virtual
spaces and the avatars contained therein of their duties and
responsibilities; in order that the forms of administration of a virtual
space may be at any time compared to that of other virtual spaces; and in
order that the grievances of players may hereafter be judged against the
explicit rights set forth, to better govern the virtual space and improve
the general welfare and happiness of all.

Therefore this document holds the following truths to be self-evident: That
avatars are the manifestation of actual people in an online medium, and
that their utterances, actions, thoughts, and emotions should be considered
to be as valid as the utterances, actions, thoughts, and emotions of people
in any other forum, venue, location, or space. That the well-established
rights of man approved by the National Assembly of France on August 26th of
1789 do therefore apply to avatars in full measure saving only the aspects
of said rights that do not pertain in a virtual space or which must be
abrogated in order to ensure the continued existence of the space in
question. That by the act of affirming membership in the community within
the virtual space, the avatars form a social contract with the community,
forming a populace which may and must self-affirm and self-impose rights
and concomitant restrictions upon their behavior. That the nature of
virtual spaces is such that there must, by physical law, always be a higher
power or administrator who maintains the space and has complete power over
all participants, but who is undeniably part of the community formed within
the space and who must therefore take action in accord with that which
benefits the space as well as the participants, and who therefore also has
the rights of avatars and may have other rights as well. That the ease of
moving between virtual spaces and the potential transience of the community
do not limit or reduce the level of emotional and social involvement that
avatars may have with the community, and that therefore the ease of moving
between virtual spaces and the potential transience of the community do not
in any way limit, curtail, or remove these rights from avatars on the
alleged grounds that avatars can always simply leave.

Articles:

Avatars are created free and equal in rights. Special powers or
privileges shall be founded solely on the common good, and not based on
whim, favoritism, nepotism, or the caprice of those who hold power. Those
who act as ordinary avatars within the space shall all have only the rights
of normal avatars.

The aim of virtual communities is the common good of its citizenry, from
which arise the rights of avatars. Foremost among these rights is the right
to be treated as people and not as disembodied, meaningless, soulless
puppets. Inherent in this right are therefore the natural and inalienable
rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance
to oppression.

The principle of all sovereignty in a virtual space resides in the
inalterable fact that somewhere there resides an individual who controls
the hardware on which the virtual space is running, and the software with
which it is created, and the database which makes up its existence.
However, the body populace has the right to know and demand the enforcement
of the standards by which this individual uses this power over the
community, as authority must proceed from the community; a community that
does not know the standards by which the administrators use their power is
a community which permits its administrators to have no standards, and is
therefore a community abetting in tyranny.

Liberty consists of the freedom to do anything which injures no one else
including the weal of the community as a whole and as an entity
instantiated on hardware and by software; the exercise of the natural
rights of avatars are therefore limited solely by the rights of other
avatars sharing the same space and participating in the same community.
These limits can only be determined by a clear code of conduct.

The code of conduct can only prohibit those actions and utterances that
are hurtful to society, inclusive of the harm that may be done to the
fabric of the virtual space via hurt done to the hardware, software, or
data; and likewise inclusive of the harm that may be done to the individual
who maintains said hardware, software, or data, in that harm done to this
individual may result in direct harm done to the community.

The code of conduct is the expression of the general will of the
community and the will of the individual who maintains the hardware and
software that makes up the virtual space. Every member of the community has
the right to contribute either directly or via representatives in the
shaping of the code of conduct as the culture of the virtual space evolves,
particularly as it evolves in directions that the administrator did not
predict; the ultimate right of the administrator to shape and define the
code of conduct shall not be abrogated, but it is clear that the
administrator therefore has the duty and responsibility to work with the
community to arrive at a code of conduct that is shaped by the input of the
community. As a member of the community himself, the administrator would be
damaging the community itself if he failed in this responsibility, for
abrogation of this right of avatars could result in the loss of population
and therefore damage to the common weal.

No avatar shall be accused, muzzled, toaded, jailed, banned, or
otherwise punished except in the cases and according to the forms
prescribed by the code of conduct. Any one soliciting, transmitting,
executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be
punished, even if said individual is one who has been granted special
powers or privileges within the virtual space. But any avatar summoned or
arrested in virtue of the code of conduct shall submit without delay, as
resistance constitutes an offense.

The code of conduct shall provide for such punishments only as are
strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except
it be legally inflicted according to the provisions of a code of conduct
promulgated before the commission of the offense; save in the case where
the offense endangered the continued existence of the virtual space by
attacking the hardware or software that provide the physical existence of
the space.

As all avatars are held innocent until they shall have been declared
guilty, if detainment, temporary banning, jailing, gluing, freezing, or
toading shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the
securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by the code
of conduct.

No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, provided their
manifestation does not disturb the public order established by the code of
conduct.

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most
precious of the rights of man. Every avatar may, accordingly, speak, write,
chat, post, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such
abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by the code of conduct, most
particularly the abuse of affecting the performance of the space or the
performance of a given avatar's representation of the space.

The security of the rights of avatars requires the existence of avatars
with special powers and privileges, who are empowered to enforce the
provisions of the code of conduct. These powers and privileges are
therefore granted for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of
those to whom they shall be entrusted. These powers and privileges are also
therefore not an entitlement, and can and should be removed in any instance
where they are no longer used for the good of all, even if the offense is
merely inactivity.

A common contribution may, at the discretion of the individual who
maintains the hardware, the software, and the data that make up the virtual
space, be required in order to maintain the existence of avatars who
enforce the code of conduct and to maintain the hardware and the software
and the continued existence of the virtual space. Avatars have the right to
know the nature and amount of the contribution in advance, and said
required contribution should be equitably distributed among all the
citizens without regard to their social position; special rights and
privileges shall never pertain to the avatar who contributes more except
insofar as the special powers and privileges require greater resources from
the hardware, software, or data store, and would not be possible save for
the resources obtainable with the contribution; and as long as any and all
avatars are able to make this contribution and therefore gain the powers
and privileges if they so choose; nor shall any articles of this
declaration be contingent upon a contribution being made.

The community has the right to require of every administrator or
individual with special powers and privileges granted for the purpose of
administration, an account of his administration.

A virtual community in which the observance of the code of conduct is
not assured and universal, nor the separation of powers defined, has no
constitution at all.

Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, and the virtual
equivalent is integrity and persistence of data, no one shall be deprived
thereof except where public necessity, legally determined per the code of
conduct, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the
avatar shall have been previously and equitably indemnified, saving only
cases wherein the continued existence of the space is jeopardized by the
existence or integrity of said data.

The administrators of the virtual space shall not abridge the freedom
of assembly, save to preserve the performance and continued viability of
the virtual space.

Avatars have the right to be secure in their persons, communications,
designated private spaces, and effects, against unreasonable snooping,
eavesdropping, searching and seizures, no activity pertaining thereto shall
be undertaken by administrators save with probable cause supported by
affirmation, particularly describing the goal of said investigations.

The enumeration in this document of rights shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by avatars.

- January 26th, 2000

(Yes, I have had this knocking around my desk for that long.)

Lofty, eh? And I do not doubt that there are some folks out there right now seizing
on this as an important document. For all I know, maybe it is.

But there are also some other folks who think that this exercise is plain dangerous.
As an example, let me take a co-worker of mine to whom I showed an early draft.
He pointed out that virtual world servers run on somebody's hardware. And that
most declarations of rights give rights over personal property. By declaring that
avatars have rights, we are abrogating that administrator's right to personal property.

Others point out that it is superfluous. After all, if virtual worlds are just
extensions of the real world, then surely all the rights we already have apply?

What about if the virtual space in question is a game? Does not it, by its nature,
obviate some of these rights?

And the biggie: what if you do not accept the basic premises in the prefatory
paragraphs?

And that is where it gets interesting: in the details. I basically posted the
document to a mailing list with a collection of the smartest virtual world administrators and
designers I know. Here are some of the various
comments from administrators from various walks of life, who got to see the original
draft of this document (names hidden to protect the innocent, and remarks vastly
paraphrased, because many of the objections were hypothetical ones).

A Declaration of the Rights of Avatars

Rights of avatars? Why not of "chess pieces"? Maybe the players
have rights, but avatars are just representations.

When a time comes that new modes and venues exist for communities, and said
modes are different enough from the existing ones that question arises as
to the applicability of past custom and law;

Come now, we are not that beyond current law, are we?

It has been convincingly argued (by Dr. Barry Wellman among others)
that the only difference that the Internet makes to communities is
the speed of information transmission. So what is really new here?

and when said venues have
become a forum for interaction and society for the general public
regardless of the intent of the creators of said venue; and at a time when
said communities and spaces are rising in popularity and are now widely
exploited for commercial gain; it behooves those involved in said
communities and venues to affirm and declare the inalienable rights of the
members of said communities. Therefore herein have been set forth those
rights which are inalienable rights of the inhabitants of virtual spaces of
all sorts, in their form henceforth referred to as avatars, in order that
this declaration may continually remind those who hold power over virtual
spaces and the avatars contained therein of their duties and
responsibilities; in order that the forms of administration of a virtual
space may be at any time compared to that of other virtual spaces; and in
order that the grievances of players may hereafter be judged against the
explicit rights set forth, to better govern the virtual space and improve
the general welfare and happiness of all.

Poppycock. I have not signed any agreement to keep the mud running, and
I have no responsibility towards the players. In fact, I might have made
them sign an agreement saying so!

What if the players do not want to accept their rights?

If administrators see themselves as above the community, rather than
part of it, this whole thing is for nothing.

Therefore this document holds the following truths to be self-evident: That
avatars are the manifestation of actual people in an online medium, and
that their utterances, actions, thoughts, and emotions should be considered
to be as valid as the utterances, actions, thoughts, and emotions of people
in any other forum, venue, location, or space.

Plainly incorrect; for one thing, the legal standards for expression
in other media vary wildly from country to country and, in fact, from medium
to medium. Bandwidth is arguably a commodity rare enough to fall under
the same sort of regulation as the FCC in the US imposes upon use of the
air waves; certainly my bandwidth is a precious resource.

Does not the fact that we have psychological disinhibition in virtual
spaces argue against this?

There are no consequences to online actions, and there are to real world
actions. In fact, you could arguably consider online actions merely speech,
and therefore bound by those standards.

Do not tell me that you are going to consider AI avatars people too.

That the well-established
rights of man approved by the National Assembly of France on August 26th of
1789 do therefore apply to avatars in full measure saving only the aspects
of said rights that do not pertain in a virtual space or which must be
abrogated in order to ensure the continued existence of the space in
question.

Uh, the rights of man approved by the National Assembly in France did not last
very long (only until Napoleon!) and I do not think anybody lives under them today.

With your escape hatch in this clause, you have left all sorts of abuses
available by justifying them as "necessary for the world's survival." Sort of
like the "national security" exception real world governments use.

That by the act of affirming membership in the community within
the virtual space, the avatars form a social contract with the community,
forming a populace which may and must self-affirm and self-impose rights
and concomitant restrictions upon their behavior.

I do not believe in the notion of a social contract. Rights are granted
explicitly by those in power.

How do you affirm membership in a free text mud anyway?

That the nature of
virtual spaces is such that there must, by physical law, always be a higher
power or administrator who maintains the space and has complete power over
all participants, but who is undeniably part of the community formed within
the space and who must therefore take action in accord with that which
benefits the space as well as the participants, and who therefore also has
the rights of avatars and may have other rights as well.

In many cases, the administrators and the people with fingers on the power
switch are not the same people. What do you do then?

In fact, the person with a finger on the power switch is probably
beholden to others--network service providers, maybe. What about them?

That the ease of
moving between virtual spaces and the potential transience of the community
do not limit or reduce the level of emotional and social involvement that
avatars may have with the community, and that therefore the ease of moving
between virtual spaces and the potential transience of the community do not
in any way limit, curtail, or remove these rights from avatars on the
alleged grounds that avatars can always simply leave.

"Why should the creator of an online community --
especially one which is created explicitly for the purpose of
entertainment -- be bound to do certain things simply because others
have chosen to make an emotional or social investment in his/her
construct?" (A direct quote).

Articles:

1. Avatars are created free and equal in rights. Special powers or
privileges shall be founded solely on the common good, and not based on
whim, favoritism, nepotism, or the caprice of those who hold power. Those
who act as ordinary avatars within the space shall all have only the rights
of normal avatars.

You know, we deny avatars the right to exist pre-emptively sometimes, by not approving them as
new players.

Are you arguing that inequality within society
is only justified if it improves the standing of the lowest common
denominator? How Rawlsian. (No, I do not know who Rawls is either).

2. The aim of virtual communities is the common good of its citizenry, from
which arise the rights of avatars. Foremost among these rights is the right
to be treated as people and not as disembodied, meaningless, soulless
puppets. Inherent in this right are therefore the natural and inalienable
rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance
to oppression.

There are literally muds out there intended for psychological
experimentation. Muds where they ask for people banned elsewhere
so they can test-to-destruction new game notions. What about those?

What about Orcs storming in and oppressing the players? Or NPC thieves?

You just defined "the aim of virtual communities." That is not liberating, that is
severely limiting! The beauty of virtual communities is their ability to be
whatever we want them to be.

What if I want you to treat me like a dog?

Property, freedom from oppression--these are pretty Western rights,
you know. Are we dragging Western ideology
into primacy in the virtual setting here?

Proudhon in his classic essay "What is Property? An Inquiry into the
Principles of Right and Government" argues that property is inimical to
liberty, you know. (No, I did not.)

3. The principle of all sovereignty in a virtual space resides in the
inalterable fact that somewhere there resides an individual who controls
the hardware on which the virtual space is running, and the software with
which it is created, and the database which makes up its existence.
However, the body populace has the right to know and demand the enforcement
of the standards by which this individual uses this power over the
community, as authority must proceed from the community; a community that
does not know the standards by which the administrators use their power is
a community which permits its administrators to have no standards, and is
therefore a community abetting in tyranny.

It might not be an individual who controls the hardware. It could be
a consortium too.

But the players only have whatever powers the administrators give them anyway.

4. Liberty consists of the freedom to do anything which injures no one else
including the weal of the community as a whole and as an entity
instantiated on hardware and by software; the exercise of the natural
rights of avatars are therefore limited solely by the rights of other
avatars sharing the same space and participating in the same community.
These limits can only be determined by a clear code of conduct.

What if there are two muds on the same machine? According to this
article, each can feel free to do whatever to starve the other of CPU
and memory.

I dare you to define injury!

Arbitrary imposed rule sets are not the only way to define rights, you know.

5. The code of conduct can only prohibit those actions and utterances that
are hurtful to society, inclusive of the harm that may be done to the
fabric of the virtual space via hurt done to the hardware, software, or
data; and likewise inclusive of the harm that may be done to the individual
who maintains said hardware, software, or data, in that harm done to this
individual may result in direct harm done to the community.

What about a game? We might explicitly wantBuffy to blast
Bubba with a fireball spell.

What about a virtual world for psych experiments? Or one which is
not open to the public? Or one which is solely for the administrator's amusement?

Who gets to define hurtful? (me! me!)

You just made administrators immune from harm. This means that they are not
part of the community and subject to the same things as everyone else. This
means this document vanishes in a poof of logic and does not exist. QED.

6. The code of conduct is the expression of the general will of the
community and the will of the individual who maintains the hardware and
software that makes up the virtual space. Every member of the community has
the right to contribute either directly or via representatives in the
shaping of the code of conduct as the culture of the virtual space evolves,
particularly as it evolves in directions that the administrator did not
predict; the ultimate right of the administrator to shape and define the
code of conduct shall not be abrogated, but it is clear that the
administrator therefore has the duty and responsibility to work with the
community to arrive at a code of conduct that is shaped by the input of the
community. As a member of the community himself, the administrator would be
damaging the community itself if he failed in this responsibility, for
abrogation of this right of avatars could result in the loss of population
and therefore damage to the common weal.

Pfft. The one real right they incontrovertibly have is the
right to log off.

Can guests contribute?

Who decides what contributions are worthy?

Do you automatically become a citizen, or is there some hurdle there?

So administrators have to listen, not act. Big whoop-te-do.

7. No avatar shall be accused, muzzled, toaded, jailed, banned, or
otherwise punished except in the cases and according to the forms
prescribed by the code of conduct. Any one soliciting, transmitting,
executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be
punished, even if said individual is one who has been granted special
powers or privileges within the virtual space. But any avatar summoned or
arrested in virtue of the code of conduct shall submit without delay, as
resistance constitutes an offense.

What about games where arbitrary orders are part of the rules?
As a simple example, what about "Simon Says"?

What about the notion that anything an administrator orders you to do is
by definition, the law?

This is not even a right, it is a law. Rights are trumps against
laws. This says you have the right not to be banned unless the law says
you can be banned. That is just window-dressing.

8. The code of conduct shall provide for such punishments only as are
strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except
it be legally inflicted according to the provisions of a code of conduct
promulgated before the commission of the offense; save in the case where
the offense endangered the continued existence of the virtual space by
attacking the hardware or software that provide the physical existence of
the space.

What about games where the evil king arrests characters?

This really curtails the freedom administrators have to police things.
I have better things to do than try to anticipate everything a
player might do.

According to this clause, the majority can establish a Code of Conduct
that systematically removes all the rights, and the populace can not do anything
about it.

9. As all avatars are held innocent until they shall have been declared
guilty, if detainment, temporary banning, jailing, gluing, freezing, or
toading shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the
securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by the code
of conduct.

What if the game is harsh in its rules?

In France the burden of proof rests on the accused, not the accuser.
This is very North American.

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, provided their
manifestation does not disturb the public order established by the code of
conduct.

What about a game where no freedom of speech is part of the fictional
game setting?

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most
precious of the rights of man. Every avatar may, accordingly, speak, write,
chat, post, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such
abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by the code of conduct, most
particularly the abuse of affecting the performance of the space or the
performance of a given avatar's representation of the space.

What about a game where no freedom of speech is part of the fictional
game setting?

12. The security of the rights of avatars requires the existence of avatars
with special powers and privileges, who are empowered to enforce the
provisions of the code of conduct. These powers and privileges are
therefore granted for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of
those to whom they shall be entrusted. These powers and privileges are also
therefore not an entitlement, and can and should be removed in any instance
where they are no longer used for the good of all, even if the offense is
merely inactivity.

What about a game where a corrupt government (even one that players
can take on significant roles in) is part of the fictional
game setting?

Who removes these powers, and who grants them?

13. A common contribution may, at the discretion of the individual who
maintains the hardware, the software, and the data that make up the virtual
space, be required in order to maintain the existence of avatars who
enforce the code of conduct and to maintain the hardware and the software
and the continued existence of the virtual space. Avatars have the right to
know the nature and amount of the contribution in advance, and said
required contribution should be equitably distributed among all the
citizens without regard to their social position; special rights and
privileges shall never pertain to the avatar who contributes more except
insofar as the special powers and privileges require greater resources from
the hardware, software, or data store, and would not be possible save for
the resources obtainable with the contribution; and as long as any and all
avatars are able to make this contribution and therefore gain the powers
and privileges if they so choose; nor shall any articles of this
declaration be contingent upon a contribution being made.

You mean I can not discontinue someone's account because they did not
pay the bill?

In combination with Article 16, does this mean if I delete a character
I have to pay them for it?

Does not this prevent a community from selectively appointing
administrators, coders, whatever, since it requires that anyone who can make
the contribution be allowed to?

Does this mean that the game administrators cannot sell a super powered
item for cash money to players? Because that seems to me to be a
valid business model in use today by several companies.

In fact, if no rights are contingent upon a contribution, does that
mean that you should not have to pay for your avatar or your access?

14. The community has the right to require of every administrator or
individual with special powers and privileges granted for the purpose of
administration, an account of his administration.

What sort of statement?

15. A virtual community in which the observance of the code of conduct is
not assured and universal, nor the separation of powers defined, has no
constitution at all.

No community can do the assuring--that requires administrators.

What powers need separated and how?

And do these really apply to the guy with his finger on the power button?
He is unbannable, after all. If you did ban him, then there are no
rules left because there is no ultimate enforcement. And then what?

IMHO, bad customers or players have less rights than good ones!

Who are we to determine what is and is not a constitution?

"I think we have to acknowledge that any participation in this kind of
Charter would be strictly voluntary. Therefore, in the interests of
diplomacy, we should not include statements that are going to alienate
people from signing on to the document."

16. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, and the virtual
equivalent is integrity and persistence of data, no one shall be deprived
thereof except where public necessity, legally determined per the code of
conduct, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the
avatar shall have been previously and equitably indemnified, saving only
cases wherein the continued existence of the space is jeopardized by the
existence or integrity of said data.

You mean monsters can not loot or break equipment? Or characters die?

This has too many exceptions. All you are saying is that players have
the right to be pissed off if it happens.

17. The administrators of the virtual space shall not abridge the freedom
of assembly, save to preserve the performance and continued viability of
the virtual space.

What about a game setting where the right to assembly is not recognized?

18. Avatars have the right to be secure in their persons, communications,
designated private spaces, and effects, against unreasonable snooping,
eavesdropping, searching and seizures, no activity pertaining thereto shall
be undertaken by administrators save with probable cause supported by
affirmation, particularly describing the goal of said investigations.

On a lot of muds, eavesdropping on players is considered a perk (repellent, I know).

Worse yet, a lot of countries do not grant their citizens this right when
using the Internet. How are you going to resolve the discrepancy?

What about all the other privacy issues? Depending on the mud, the administrators
may know a heck of a lot about you & your lifestyle.

19. The enumeration in this document of rights shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by avatars.

Then what is it supposed to do? This negates the whole exercise!

You know, in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows provincial
governments to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court and do whatever they
want anyway. What about something like that?

And a final comment, because it is priceless:

"If I were the United States Secretary of Virtual Worlds and I were
shopping around for an administration policy for USMud I would start with
something like this. If I were Joe Businessman, I might pay lip-service to
to this, but I sure as heck would not put it in my user contract and leave
myself open to lawsuits."

There are a lot of interesting points raised above. One of the most interesting is,
why should an administrator feel bound by the fact that others have made an emotional
investment in their work?

A sense of responsibility?

A coworker and I got into a argument over this. Let us say you publicly say,
"Hey, my empty lot is now open to the public, anyone can squat there!" In
the real world, you can actually get in trouble for not providing adequate
sanitation. You would certainly be reviled as an insensitive slob for kicking
the squatters off. The sense here is that by making the invitation, you are
entering into a social contract with the people who may or may not come by
and use the empty lot.

We can argue endlessly whether this is fair or not. It is not, in my opinion (but what is?). But it is
still the case. If I personally invite people to squat in my empty lot and
then some of them die because I failed to cover the open mine shaft, well,
I would feel a sense of responsibility. It would sure be nice not to, but I will
because I have developed a certain level of personal ethics that entail
feeling that way.

Plenty of mud administrators do not have this particular ethic--nor am I arguing
that they must. But I think arguing whether they should is a good debate to
have.

I would argue that if your goal is to have a thriving empty lot that
develops into a small town, then you probably want to feel this sense of
responsibility, because the squatters are not likely to thrive unless
someone with authority over the lot does have that personal ethic.

In the real world, we actually go further than that--we can be held responsible
for things that happen to trespassers on our property.

Now, you may have different intent for your virtual space--or your property.
You may have just invited people there for the evening. So shutting down (as long
as you announced it in advance) is still fine. There was an expectation established,
after all.

It is also been pointed out by my panel of mud-cum-rights experts that
technically, the property is intangible, which means we are actually in the realm
of Group Intellectual Property Law, which is a nebulous construct even in the
real world, much less the virtual. Here there be dragons.

On the point that the document as a whole restricts administrators too much in managing
the virtual spaces, I would point out that having a clear code of conduct for both
players and administrators has been shown to make running the space go much smoother
overall. Some argue that having unposted rules, or relying purely on community
norms, helps curb the idiots or anarchists who find ways to skirt the posted rules.
But we can reference the Minnie case (and the Finn case come to think of it) described in My
Tiny Life for what can happen if unwritten rules are used against such a person
and then others start to fear that it could be used against them with less
cause. It is a very slippery slope.

Of course, having good tracking of patterns of behavior will mean that these
people will likely get taken care of anyway. People who break any given rule
repeatedly tend to break several of them repeatedly. So concrete advice to
administrators is, have a history of infractions for every avatar. It does not
say anything in the document about not keeping records, establishing more severe penalties
for repeated infractions, curtailing the freedoms of players with long administrator
records, etc. Presumably someone who has a long administrator record is not going to
be considered a "good customer" anymore, right?

In a commercial endeavor, it makes sense to include money as a factor. Good
customers may well get permitted more infractions, because the definition of
an administrator record is "things that cost us money (via administrator time spent)." As
long as this is in the code of conduct, and applies equally well to two
different good customers who have paid the same amount, then you are
fulfilling the letter of the article.

I would submit that the enhanced record keeping alone from doing that
would probably streamline your costs and make for better business decisions
when the time comes to punish someone.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about all the administrator commentary on the
document is that the biggest concerns boil down to just a few things:

I do not want to surrender control. I hate the notion of "rights" for players.

I may not be making this sort of virtual world. Maybe it is a game. (Which is
largely easily answered by saying, "these rights apply out of character, not
in character, of course.")

By the way, I really do not want to surrender control.

The second is interesting. What about virtual meeting places for businesses,
or online universities. I would argue that the need for rights applies even more
in such environments. But it is clear that there is a sliding scale of applicability
here. It raises the question of what a mud is for, and what life cycle it
has. Common wisdom has it that "a mud must grow, or stagnate and die." If
so, then the common good means anything that works against increasing the
population of a mud. However, a mud that grows into something which all of
its members despise is not developing towards the common good. So a better
definition might be, the common good is that which increases the population
of a mud without surrendering core social tenets or mores. But that word
"stagnate" is in that bit o' common wisdom too. So it may be good for a mud
to evolve its core social tenets in order to adapt to the changing
population. Free immigration means that this will be accelerated--note that
nowhere does the document say that you can not simply not accept people into
the mud who are not aligned with the mud's key social tenets.

Then there are the mud administrators who do not give a flip about population growth...

When all is said and done, though, I am clearly defending something completely implausible on one key level:

as a document for players, it is a waste of time. They may trumpet it, but
who cares? They have zero power, and the document actually states that
several times over.

as a document for administrators, however, it is pretty much all common sense.
Whether or not you believe in any of the principles that lead to calling
these articles rights, or whether or not you believe in rights at all, I would
bet that you probably subscribe to most of these. In many cases, out of
sheer, ruthless practicality and business horse sense.

What happens if we remove the word rights, and in fact remove all the high-flown
language? If we just phrase this as suggestions instead? If we just phrase it in
modern English? I will present just the plain language version this time.

Advice to Virtual World Administrators

Mud players are people. They do not stop being people when they log on.
Therefore they deserve to be treated like people. This means they have the
rights of people. By joining a mud, they join a community of people. Rights
arise from the community. But there is always someone with their finger on
the power switch. But he is part of the community too, and should use his
powers for the common good and the survival of the community. The fact that
you can easily move to another mud does not mean that these rights go away.

Articles:

All mud players get the same rights. Special powers on the mud are given
out for the good of the mud, not because some guy is the friend of a wizard.

Mud players are people, and therefore they have the rights of people:
liberty, property, security, and freedom from oppression.

Somewhere, there is a guy with his finger on the power button. What he
says ultimately goes. The mud players have the right to know the code of
conduct he is going to enforce over them, and what rules and standards he is
going to use when he makes a decision. Otherwise, they are suckers and
deserve what mistreatment they get.

You can do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt others. "Hurting
others" needs to be defined in the code of conduct.

The code of conduct should not be capricious and arbitrary. The rules
should be based on what is good for the mud (and for the good of the mud's
hardware, software, and data).

The code of conduct should evolve based on the way the mud culture
evolves, and players should get a say in how it evolves. The mud administrators get
to write it however they want, but they have an obligation to listen or else
the players might leave.

You can not punish someone for something that is not the code of conduct.
Abusing your wizard powers is a serious crime. If you are caught in a violation
of the code of conduct, fess up.

You can not punish someone in a way not in the code of conduct, and you the
administrator do not get to rewrite the code of conduct after the fact to make it
legal. The only exception is action taken to keep the mud from going "poof."

Players are innocent until proven guilty. Treat them decently until guilt
is proven.

As long as they are not spamming or breaking the code of conduct, players
should be free to believe whatever they want.

As long as they are not spamming or breaking the code of conduct, players
should be free to yell, chat, gossip, post, or otherwise say whatever they
want.

You are probably going to want administrators. Administrators get special powers for the
good of the mud, not to make them feel cool. They are not an entitlement
because the imp is your cousin, and if you are not using them for the good of
all (which includes not using them at all and shirking your administrator duties)
they should get yanked.

Players might have to pay to keep the mud running. They should know how
much they will have to pay beforehand. You should not have different pay
scales for different players unless those other players actually involve
more costs. If you do let people buy greater privileges, then you should
allow ANY player to buy these privileges, and not bar some people from it
because you do not like them. Also, payment does not mean they get to have
godlike powers to fry other people with--they still have to obey these
rights.

Players have a right to know why the administrators did things the way they did,
like why they player wiped or moved an area or whatever. In particular, why a
given immortal banned one guy for spamming but let the other off the hook.
(Note that given the circumstances, you may not be able to do for legal reasons).

No exceptions to the code of conduct--it applies to everyone.

Do not player wipe/data wipe unless the mud can not survive unless you do.
If you do have to wipe someone, make it up to them somehow.

Let people hang out wherever they want with whoever they want in the
mud, unless it is causing mud slow downs or something.

Players have a right to privacy. Do not snoop them or spy on them or
rifle through their mail unless you are investigating a code of conduct
violation.

There is probably stuff missing in this document.

The interesting thing is that mud administrators find the second document much more palatable.
Phrased in this way, it is not an abrogation of their power. It is concrete advice
that will help you retain your player base. In fact, some even said they would be willing
to sign to it as a "declaration" because it would make them look good as administrators
to adhere to such a standard. There are damn few justifiable reasons to deny any
of the things in the above version--and if you did, likely you would be considered a
jerk for doing it--or a power-hungry administrator with a god complex (is there a
difference?).

If administrators see themselves as above the community, do they have any
responsibilities towards the community whatsoever?

If they do, can they be articulated?

If they can be articulated and generally agreed upon, are they players'
rights or are they merely good ethics on the part of a mud administrator?

One camp is going to argue that it is their mud, by god, and therefore they
have the right to do whatever they want with it (and with the people in it).
Some might temper this by saying that they do not have the right to violate
real life law in the process, but I think a sizable faction would argue that even
that does not curtail their power in any way.

Another camp is going to argue that with great power comes great
responsibility, a la Spiderman. And that clear guidelines and the rule of
law is the only way to handle a responsibility of such magnitude.

Both sides will agree that they still have their finger on the power button,
and that this changes the landscape of "rights" considerably. And if you do
feel that you are ethically bound to act responsibly, then you may have to
violate some of your ethical principles in order to keep the mud running.

And if it is a commercial environment:

Is it bad business to be a part of the community?

Is it bad business NOT to be?

This is one of the self-contradictions built into the document. The
logic goes like this:

Of paramount importance is the survival of the community.

Somebody who has his finger on the power switch can make the community go
poof.

Ergo, keeping this guy happy is of paramount importance.

But if keeping him happy means letting him psychologically torture you,
well, that means the community is not likely to survive.

And survival of the community is of paramount importance...

The logical answer is for the community to move wholesale--in essence,
picking another guy with a power switch who hopefully is made happy by other
sorts of pleasures. Virtual communities often do this, as we have seen. And
they always seem to feel that they were betrayed by the previous
administrator--which indicates the self-assignation of a right by the community.

The irony is that it is all probably moot. The reason why players hold administrators to this
standard is because they have assumed that this standard is what should be there
regardless. In other words, the advice works because it is what players expect and
say they want. Which is no different from self-affirmed rights. This is probably why
players scream that their rights have been violated when one of the above articles
is violated (even if the administrators are not signatories to any such document).

So the real point of a document like this would be to see how many administrators
would sign, not how many players. As an administrator, yes, I would probably sign, in the sense
that I would agree that these are solid administrative principles in terms of
practical effect.

The question then becomes, if we subscribe in terms of practical effect, and
as long as there are sufficient loopholes present that we can exercise power
when we need to, who cares whether players think these are rights, laws,
doohickeys, or power fantasies? (Welcome to the Machiavellian world of player
relations!)

Why do you want freedom to do things that are bad administrator or business
practice? (even considering that "freedom" and so on are total mirages in
this whole situation...)

Especially since "rights" in the real world already have zero power?

(Note that I am not suggesting that all the muds or commercial endeavors should run
out and implement this list of "rights," nor am I suggesting that if they do not
that they are run by power-hungry maniacs. This is too complex an issue to reduce
to that level.)

The last step that would be required to actually make such a document into a
Bill of Rights for players would be for it to be codified into "law," (which is
probably a Code of Conduct or Terms of Service agreement signed by all players,
account holders, and administrators) and thus be something that administrators would be bound
to. Administrators are, by and large, not going to do this, even though some of the
commercial MMORPG companies do require their game masters to sign
documents saying that they will behave in a manner surprisingly similar to what
the document espouses. But there is an interesting forward-thinking
pie-in-the-sky reason for administrators to contemplate doing so someday...

Someday there will not be any administrators. Someday it is going to be your bank
records and your grocery shopping and your credit report and yes, your virtual
home page with data that exists nowhere else. Someday it is going to be Snow
Crash and Neuromancer and Otherland all wrapped up into one,
and it may be a little harder to write to Customer Service. Your avatar profile
might be your credit record and your resume and your academic transcript, as
well as your experience points earned.

On the day that happens, I bet we will all wish we had a few more rights in the
face of a very large, distributed server, anarchic, virtual world where it might
be very very hard to move to a different service provider. Heck, I would
bet that those folks who plan to play Bioware's forthcoming Neverwinter Nights
might very well want their administrators to sign such a document. The future is already almost
here.

So in the end, all the Declaration of the Rights of Avatars is, is a useful tool
for players and administrators alike: administrators who do not know what they are doing can use
it as a blueprint, and players can use it to evaluate mud administrations in
search of one they like.

So yeah. I am not seriously proposing that we declare the rights of avatars. The
document is, as has been shown, riddled with gotchas and logical holes. It is a
hypothetical exercise.

For now.

This essay could not have been written without the help of:

Christopher Allen

Paul Schwanz

David Bennett

John Bertoglio

Par Winzell

Eli Stevens

Phillip Lenhardt

Erik Jarvi

Justin Randall

and most especially:

Geoffrey A. MacDougall

Jon A. Lambert

Matt Mihaly

Jeff Freeman

Travis S. Casey

Jame Scholl

and extra especially Kristen Koster, who helped draft the original version of the Declaration.